THE BIBLIOTHECA SACRA.

ARTICLE I. A PRESBYTERIAN'S VIEW OF CONGREGATlOi\'­ ALISM.

RY THE REV. A. HASTINGS ROSS, IJ.D., PORT HURON, MICH.

TilE prayer of the poet- .. 0 wad some pow'r the giftie gie us, To see oursels as ".hers see us!" is, providentially, not oftr n answered. But when it is an­ swered, those who make it ought not to forego the pleasure of a careful scrutiny. Congregationalists have now that privilege. A Presbyterian after a half-century of study has drawn their portrait. J And let us look at it. Rev. Dr. Killen, .. after a brief but remarkably useful pas­ toral life, was called to the Professorship of Church History in the Presbyterian College, Belfast, and a large proportion of the clergy of the Irish Presbyterian Church have caught the spirit of his Lectures o.n • Church History' and' Pastoral Theology.' ...... Dr. Killen is a pronounced Presby- terian, but not from mere hereditary leaning; but, as the lawyers say, 'for cause.''' 2

1 The Framework of the Church. A Treatise on Church Governmen t. By W. D. Killeu, D.D., President of Assembly's College, Belfast, and

Digitized by Coogle 194 A Presbytt'ria/l's Vit"W [April,

Our author divides his" Framework of the Church" into four parts: The Church and its Government (six chapters, pp. I-51); Congregationalism (six chapters, pp. 53-110); Prelacy (thirteen chapters, pp. 111-235); (cleven chapters, pp. 237-334); and an Appendix on The Ignatian Epistles (pp. 335-349), regarding them as entirely spurious. We pass by entirely his treatment of Prelacy and Presbyterianism, except as they may incidentally refer to Congregationalism, and confine our examination to his pre­ sentation of the latter. The author has given" much of his attention for at least half a century to the scriptural constitution of the church," and naturally desires" to com­ municate to others his matured convictions on the questions in dispute." 1 It is a great pity that he has not given us the sources of information on which his convictions rest. We an: at a loss to know who sat for our portrait. We will notice but a few minor points. He retains gell­ erally the Authorized Version, but in a few instances he calls in the Revision to support his positions. Repeatedly he quotes Acts xx. 28, but without any intimation that the Revision and commentators and scholars alike agree in changing" over the which" into" in the which," thus placing elders in the church, llot over it. This fact excites the sus­ picion that the advocate sometimes leads him to suppress the exact truth. He does not sel~m to be aware that the words" the church:' in Acts ix. 3 I, can be satisfactorily ex­ plained in harmony with Independency. 2 T..... • Don ...... J....n ...... " .. J....n a,...;-.l, , .. ( I~ .. "l" ; ..... ,... I' _.." ..

Digitized by Coogle of C01lgregationalism. 195 inces; 1 as Paul addresses an Epistle to "the churches" of one of these provinces; ~ and as John speaks of" the seven churches," most of which were in these provinces;8 we can hardly believe that the apostle referred to a of churches, but, instead, to the spiritual body of saints gath­ ered into churches presided over by the elders. But we will pass by details and texts where the ground has been fought over and with results so generally adverse to Dr. Killen's positions, and confine ourselves to several lines of argument. In many things we agree with our author. We are glad he gives polity a higher place than many. He says: "Pol­ ity has a more special reference to the cdificatioll of the church. It is designed to check irregularities, to foster spiritual growth, to sustain or vindicate reputation, and to promote the free development of the gospel." 4 .. The dis­ cussion [of polity] has been prosecuted with the greatest vigor when the church has been in the most healthy condi­ tion." 5 .. But it is obvious also that the question of ecclesi­ astical polity must be solved to the satisfaction of all parties, before we can reali7.e this happy consummation," .. of a visi­ ble and universal church." 6 Fortunately the Presbyterians and Congregationalists have one standard of authority, which both sides regard as final because supreme. .. The apostles were empowered by their Divine Master to make all needful arrangements; and, so far as it is desirable for us to be supplied with information, these arrangements are reported to us in the New Testa­ ment." j He does not claim that the New Testament gives in detail the form of the church, but says: .. The church, to a considerable extent, partakes of the character of any other human society; and, thus far, we do not need the light of

I I Peter i. I. ~ Gal. i. 2. 8 Rev. i. 4.

• Framework, etc., p. II. In quotations throughout this article, the itnlics are the author's.

6 {Did., p. 38. d {Did., p. 32. 7 {Did., p. 17.

Digitized by Coogle A Presbyterian's View [April.

revelation to enable us to regulate its management." "Scrip­ ture comes to our aid only when we might be exf>ected to err if left without its illumination." 1 Dr. John Hall had said the same: "All that is contended for is that principles are indicated, guarded, illustrated, and enforced, the develop­ ment of which in a body of Christian people" would give the true polity. 2 No doubt all good Presbyterians would acknowledge that .. the church which, in all its arrangements, adheres most closely to the stanqard laid down in the book of God, has the most substantial claim to the title Christian, Catholic, and Apostolic." 8 It is unfortunate, when we dis-· cuss polity with some other denominations, that we find no common standard; for reason, inner-light, tradition, decrees of the church or of the pope, are made co-ordinate with. or superior to, the ;' but with our author we have a common criterion by which to settle questions in dispute. One question in dispute between us relates to the inde­ pendency of the primitive churches. On this he says: "If the Scriptures teach that there was once, or may be, one visible, then the idea of every congregation being of every other is fairly overturned." 6 He goes so far as to assert that" Presbyterian Church gov­ ernment prevailed throughout the whole of the first and a considerable part of the second century." 6 He even thinks that certain passages" authorize Presbyterian Church gov­ ernment as clearly as language can sanction any ecclesiasti­ cal institution." 7 As Presbyterianism consists in a series of aooellate courts. namelv. sessions. oresbvteries. . and

Digitized by Coogle 189 1.] of Congrt·gationalistll. 197 churches, .. their courts were held in much privacy; and un­ til was established by the Emperor Constantine, no general, or ecumenical, council could be congregated." 1 He cites no authorities in proof that there existed presby­ teries, synods, and assemblies in the first century or in the first half of the second century. He refers to the confer­ ence at Jerusalem (A. D. 50), held between .. the apostles and the elders;" 2 and claims that its action" completely upsets the theory of Congregationalism.. . . The primitive disciples knew nothing of any such stand-off Christianity." 3 . This general synod, as he regards it, admitted" the whole church" to a part of the proceedings (ver. 22), whose action had authority because the apostles, guided by the Holy Ghost, authorized it (v"er. 28). This is not left to inferencl', but is made a matter of record. Hence Congregationalists and church historians see nothing in it inconsistent with the independence of the primitive churches. Against his denial of their independence or autonomy, we present the concession of historians, who assert that the primitive churches were absolutely independent of exterior control, each competent in itself to manage all its affairs, elect and ordain all its officers, to complete all its rites and acts, and so to perpetuate Christianity should all other churches cease to exist. Dr. Killen does not refer to any such authority, but ignores it. If quoting at all, it is in favor of some incidental point, as the plurality of ruling elders in the churches. He denies Independency, or Congregational­ ism, on his own authority. But for such recent denial we might forego quotation: as it is, we cite impartial author­ ities chiefly of other communions. Gibbon says: "The so­ cieties which were instituted in the cities of the Roman

1 J<'ramework, etc., p. 104.

2 Acts xv. 1-35. 8 Framework, p. So.

Digitized by Coogle A Presbyterian's Vit""ti.! [April,

Empire were united only by the ties of faith and charity. Independence and equality formed the basis of their internal constitution."l "Every church," says Waddington,dean of Durham, .. was essentially independent of every other." 2 Archbishop Whateley, the primate of Ireland, wrote: "The apostles founded Christian churches, all based on the same principles, all sharing common privileges, . . . but all quite independent of each other." a .. Every town congregation of ancient Christianity," says Bunsen, .. was a church. The constitution of that church was a congregational constitu­ tion. In St. Paul's Epistles, in the writings of Clement Romanus, of Ignatius, and of Polycarp, the congregation is the highest organ of the Spirit, as well as the power of the church." 4 Mosheim 6 is very explicit on the independence of" the minor churches" of those of" greater magnitude or consequence," each" being on a footing of the most perfect equality with the rest." Dean Milman: .. Each church was an absolutely independent community."6 Even the Ency­ clopredia Britannica calls their "constitution" "thoroughly democratic." 7 So certain is their independency, that Cole­ man says: "No fact connected with the history of the prim­ itive churches is more fully established or more generally conceded." 8 But modem criticism and research have un­ settled many things; is this conceded' independency also unsettled? Has Dr. Killen discovered new light in his half­ century of research? He claims none and presents none. Indeed, the most critical research has confirmed the abso­ lute independency, under Christ, of the early churches.

Digitized by Coogle of Congregationalism. 199 ity," in "a remarkable book," says: "The theory upon which the public worship of the primitive churches proceeded was that each community was complete in itself, and that in every act of worship every element of the community was present." "Every such community seems to have had a complete organization, and there is no trace of the depend­ ence of anyone community upon any other." " At the be­ ginning of the [fourth] century ... the primitive type still survived; the government of the churches was in the main a ; at the end of the century the primitive type had almost disappeared; the clergy were a separate and govern­ ing class." "In the first ages of its history, while on the one hand it wa. a great and living faith, so on the other hand it was a vast and organized brotherhood, and being at brotherhood, it was a democracy." 1 So far from there being any such judicatories, with authority, as constitute the very essence of Presbyterianism, "not even the resolutions of the conference were binding on a dissentient minority of its members. Cyprian . . . claims in emphatic and explicit terms an absolute independence of each community." 2 He shows that it was the state, in the fourth century, which, joined with the church, constrained such "resolutions" to be "regarded as binding upon the churches." 3 "There is no proof that the words of Holy Scripture in which the unity of the church is expressed or implied refer exclusively, or at all, to unity of organization. There is, on the other hand, clear proof that they were in early times applied to another kind of unity." 4 "The most recent and thorough inquiries in to the organ- : ...... ~: ..... _ -.r .. l..~ ... _ ...... ~ .... 1: ...... t... •• _ .... t...".r. ,~_.L:\...: .. .. 1...... ,= __ .... _('P~ from

Digitized by Coogle 200 A Presbyterian's View [April, phatic the constitutive Frinciple under discussion." 1 Pro­ fessor Hugh M. Scott, D. D., of the Chicago Theological Seminary, in giving the results of such inquiries, says: .. Everywhere the congregation is independent, autonomous, and self-deciding." "Whether we accept the details of this discussion or not, two things shine forth with greater clear­ ness than ever before: an apostolic system, in which every local church was free, self-governed, autonomous, and resting on a holy brotherhood of believers; and a min­ istry that was called only of God, charismatic, prophetic, and in very few respects resembling its ordinary modern clerical successor." II So far from agreeing with these. results of impartial modern inquiry, Dr. Killen pronounces the" very name, In­ dependency," to be ., apparently opposed to the genius of the gospel;"8 and the picture he gives of our polity, if true, justifies him in saying this. We will not venture to state his views, lest we be charged with caricature. He says: .. The Independents, or Congregationalists, maintain that every single congregation is a complete church in itself; that it should be allied to no other body by any bond of eccle­ siastical connection; and that it should look up to no other body for any ecclesiastical superintendence."4 "One catho­ lic church visible is not a heap of unconnected fragments, but a united whole. . . . But, according to the Independent scheme, one catholic visible church can have no existence; for Congregationalists deny that Scripture recognizes any such union or confederation." 6 Referring to Paul's compar­ ison of the church to the body with many members.6 each

Digitized by Coogle of Congregationalism. 201 dom: 'I am independent, I have no need of you.'" 1 "In­ dependency practically holds that, according to the law of Christ, congregations are not bound to bear one another's burdens." 2 "The model of a church, as furnished by Con­ gregationalism, is that . . . of a solitary building surroun­ ded by a high wall shutting it out from all adjacent edi­ fices." 8 This" model" is so transcendent in its" insula­ tion," that "the Independents . . . practically admit that to act up strictly to the peculiarities of their system would be damaging to their interests as a party; and . . . on several occasions, they have sh..-n a disposition to unite their ch urchcs." 4 In astonishment we ask: Where had the aged professor obtained such false views of the Congregational polity? He refers to no authorities. We can hardly believe that the In­ dependent churches of Ireland, Scotland, England, and Wales sat for the picture. It is certainly to be hoped that not" a large proportion of the clergy of the Irish Presbyterian Church have caught the spirit of his Lectures" on .. Polity," if they have "on 'Church History' and 'Pastoral Theol­ ogy.' " He confounds authority and unity; so that, with him, there can be no union without authority to coerce, and the denial of authority to govern is a denial of unity and all fellowship. This is his false assumption, out of which his caricature of Congregationalism springs. But our whole history, including platforms and standard writers, is a pro­ test against this contortion of our polity. The very word" Congregationalism," which he uses inter­ changeably with .. Independency," is a repudiation of his c{,nception of the polity. The lamented Dr. Dexter, in 1865, cited a long array of authorities to attest that" a fra­ ternal fellowship is yet to be maintained among these

1 Framework, p. 75.

2 Ibid.. p. 73 . • Ibid., p. 76. f Ibid.• p. 53. •

Digitized by Coogle 202 A Presbytcriml's Vz't"W [April, independent churches :"1 Robert Browne (1582), John Rob­ inson (1624), (1645), (1643), John Davenport (1663), Thomas Hooker (1648), Cambridge Platform (1648), John Wise (1710), (1716), (1726), Samuel Mather (1738), Upham (1844), Nathaniel Emmons (1826), Enoch Pond (1848), Principles of Church Order, etc., of the Congregational Union of England and Wales (1833), Punchard (1840), Davidson (1848), New Englander (1856), Wellman (1857). How could a student overlook these authorities? Besides, his reading should have breught to his attention these other refutations of his theory of Congregationalism. A writer in sent a letter to the mother-land, in 1643, in which he said: "We have had a synod lately in our college, wherein sundry things were agreed on gravely.... 3. That consociation of churches, in way of more general meetings yearly, and more privately, monthly, or quarterly consulla­ tive synods are very comfortable, and necessary for the peace and good of the churches."2 In 1641 the General Court of Massachusetts-" the whole body of the church legislating for its parts "3--enacted, as a law of the Colony: "It is allowed that once in every month of the year . . . it shall be lawful for the ministers and elders of the churches ncar adjoining together, with any other of the brethren, with the consent of the churches, to assemble by course, in each several . church, one after another," for preaching and for .. public Christian conference," etc.4 Indeed, no church could be organized or approved "without they shall first acquaint the magistrates and the elders of the greater part of the churches in this jurisdiction, with their intentions, and

Digitized by Coogle of COllgregaliollaiis1JI. 203

General Court a synod was held in 1648," to set forth a form of government; "1 and another in 1662, to answer "whether there ought to be a consociation of churches, and what should be the manner of it?" "There appeared no dfssent or dissatisfaction in the synod about the matter.·' 2 .. They were industrious for the combination of our churches into such a bundle of arrows as might not be easily broken." 3 They did not inteno to become Presbyterians, for they defined consociation as "a combination which doth neither constitute any new form of a church, nor ought it to take away, nor in any measure to diminish, the liberty and power which Christ hath left to his. churches. but only it serves to direct and abridge the same." 4 The Cambridg-e Platform (1648) says: "The term Independent we approve not." 6 Its fifteenth chapter, consisting of four sections and six subsections, is entitled: "Of the Communion of Churches One with Another;" while the sixteenth chapter, of six sections, is entitled: "Of Synods." This Platform dominated our churches, except in Connecticut, down to 1865, when the Boston Platform was endorsed and com­ mended; of which Part III. is given to "the communion of churches," in five chapters, thirty-one sections, besides sub­ sections. In Connecticut, in 1708, the Saybrook Platform supplanted the Cambridge, introducing a consociation system ~ that borders on Presbyterian authority. A system of coun­ cils has also been in constant operation among American Congregationalists from the beginning, and a system of associations of churches from the beginning of the present century, combining all our churches in district, state, and national bodies. In view of these facts, how could any

1 Records Mass. Col., Vol. ii. p. zoo. 2 Felt's Eccl. Hist., Vol. ii.'pp. z89, Z96. a Mather's" Magnalia," quoted by Felt, Vol. ii. p. 296. • Felt's Eccl. Hist., Vol. ii. p. 341. 6 Chap. ii. sect. S.

Digitized by Coogle 204 A Presbyterian's Vic'w [April, well-informed and truthful writer say: "According to this system [Congregationalism], the church is in tke most per­ fect condition when it presents the appearance of universal dismemberment, and when every individual congregation is in no way bound to any other"? 1 ' But it may be replied that he is speaking of Congrega­ tionalism in Great Britain, not in America. But had he read" A Confession and Protestation of the Faith of Certain Christians in England," 1616, he would have found a sec­ tion on "Synods and Councils," in which it is said: ",We acknowledge ... that, on occasion, there ought to be, on earth, a consociation of congregations or churches, ... but not a subordination, or surely not a subjection, of the con­ gregations under any higher spiritual authority absolute, save only Christ's and the Holy Scriptures." 2 In a reply to Herle, in J 644, it is said: .. While churches are subject to the wholesome advice and counsel of other churches; and so far as the same shall be according to God, they ought to hearken thereunto: and if they do not, they may lawfully be renounced by other churches from all church communion with them." 8 Heylyn writes, 1638, of "Goodwin, Nye, Bur­ roughes, Bridge, and Simpson": .. These men, neither affect­ ing the severe discipline of Presbytery, nor the licentiousness incident to Brownism, embraced Robinson's model of church government in their congregations, consisting of a co-ordi­ nation of several churches for their mutual comfort; not of a subordination of the one to the other, in the way of direc­ tion or command. Hence came the name of 'Independents.' ,,' But the English Congregationalists, in 1658, held a formal synod at the Savoy, by elders and messengers from one

Digitized by Coogle 0.1 Congregationalism. 205 tional Churches in England." 1 The Declaration of Faith was almost identical with the Westminster Confession. The Declaration of Church Order is short compared with the Cambridge Platform ([648), consisting of only thirty sec­ tions. On the question of Independency, it is very explicit, and yet it says: "So the churches themselves (when planted by the providence of God, so as they may have opportunity and advantage for it) ought to hold communion amongst themselves for their peace, increase of love, and mutual edi­ fication." It then provides for "a synod or council" of churches, "to consider and give their advice in, or about, that matter in difference, to be reported to all the churches con­ cerned," but without authority or "jurisdiction over the churches." So churches, without cause, should not "refuse the communion of each other."2 Since [831 the Congre­ gational Union of England and Wales has existed, with similar bodies in Australia, Canada, and other countries. "In every county in England there are • associations' or 'unions' of Congregational churches, several of which wefe organized, in their present form, before the close of the last century." 8 Dr. Wardlaw regards the union of churches as essential. "In the designation of 'congregational union' there are no elements whatever of contradiction." "The whole mystery is, that ours is a union of .fellowsMp and co-Operation, but not a union of jurisdiction or aut/lOrity." 4 Neither in America nor in England and Scotland does Dr. Killen find justification for his view of Congregationalism. Certainly we need not Quote further. We doubt whether a

Digitized by Coogle 206 A PNsbytcriall's Vit'W [April, that any or "every individual congregation is in no way bound to any other," and that "congregations are not bound to bear one another's burdens," and they emphatically assert the very opposite. With such a false view of Congregationalism, Dr. Killen treats all the attempts at union and co-operation as con­ cessions to Presbyterianism: We quote: "Of late they [the Congregationalists] have been induced to set up a ma­ chinery, to which. according to their own tcnets, the Scrip­ tures give no countenance; for they have been assiduously endeavoring to organize general associations, or what are called Coltgngatiollal {'!lio1ls, in England. Scotland, and Ireland." 1 "The constitution of Independent congregations presents insuperable difficulties in the way of carrying out any such general rule" as is required in administering a sus­ tentation fund.!! In councils of ordination" Independency virtually acknowledges its insufficiency; it tacitly admits that C\'cry congregation does IIOt possess all spiritual authority." In disputes between and pcople, the is denied trial by jury. or by a disinterested tribunal, but instead "his opponent~ are his judges." 3 .. Congrega­ tional Unions are merely awkward approximations to pres­ byteries and synods ... • Evcn Dr. John Hall is led into the same error, for he says: .. \Vhatevcr may be guarded in name from the appearance of legislative or executive author­ ity, in an 'association' among our Baptist and Congregational brethren, any Presbyterian admitted thereto by courtesy finds the substance of thc action of his presbytery repro­ duced." 6 Even "when a confederation of ministers is

Digitized by Coogle of Cong-reg-ationalism. 207

education, missions, etc., II they have departed with a noble inconsistency from the peculiarities of their ecclesiastical constitution," which is "total1y unable to accomplish any great enterprise." 1 Dr. Killen utterly ignores union and co-operation through fel1owship; yet this has been the common source of the' magnificent charities and co-operative labors among Congre­ gationalists. In our polity, as in others, there has been II a principle of evolution," 2 to quote Dr. Hall again, which has in this century united om churches in associations and in labors; and free fel10wship is stronger for unity than force. There is but one general congregational union or association in anyone of the United States, one national council, one union for Ireland, one for Scotland, one for England and Wales, one for Canada, one for each province in Australia. But in the Second Council of the Presbyterian Alliance, held in 1880, there were enrolled two Presbyterian churches for Ireland. five for Scotland, eight for the United States, three for Austria, two for France, two for Germany, two for Italy, . and four for Switzerland,-each a national body. This is the unity of force! Independency, on the basis of free fel­ lowship. manifests a far greater unit;:. But even free and equal fellowship is reciprocal in rights and duties. Two churches, in contemplating association together, are bound to inquire whether in faith and practice they are sufficiently agreed to walk together. The same is true of many. No church has the right,-because it is a church of Christ,-to force itself upon the fellowship of an- _..... 1__ .. _L .. ___ 1. '-.- ---

Digitized by Coogle 208 A Presbyterian's Vit"'d l [April,

should cover essential points, and Ii no church should be cut off from communion for inferior and dubious offences." 1 While hugely the church" partakes of the character of any other human society,"" the word of God must be the ulti­ mate arbiter of all our actions." 2 In exhibiting therefore the revealed unity of all believers, the method is left to sanctified common sense, subject to the independency of local churches; for the complete autonomy under Christ of each and every congregation of believers is as much' a matter of New Testament teaching as the unity of all such congregations is the prayer of Christ. 8 On this constitu­ tive principle of autonomy, our churches have built up a • consistent scheme of unity in each nation, and the call is issued for an international council. Though this scheme has been developed during the past century in Europe and America, the independency of each church is held to be as sacred now as ever. We have never heard of an' instance of lording it over the churches by such bodies. Such is our unity and liberty. What of protection and security for churches and ministers? When a church asks. admission to the fellowship of an association, that associa­ tion, in the exercise of reciprocal rights and duties, decides, after due inquiry, whether it will receive it or not. So also when a minister asks for standing therein on credentials. If either church or minh;iter be found unworthy of fellow­ ship, the application is rejected; and if they be admitted and then become unworthy, that church or minister is, after due inquiry. expelled. And if the excluded or expelled partv

Digitized by Coogle of COtlg-reg-ationaiism. 209 mutual or ex parte council for examination and advice. An appeal to a presbytery, in matters of doctrine, may be, not to say, must be, to a partial tribunal; for every member of the presbytery has had to subscribe the Westminster Con­ fession, a partial statement of biblical doctrine; and if ap­ peal be taken to the synod and to the assembly, the same creed controls. But when in our polity an aggrieved party asks for a mutual council to hear its case, that party chooses one-half of its members; and if the party doing an alleged wrong refuse to join in calling a mutual council, the aggrieved may call an ex parte council, selecting all its members. Dr. Killen's charge that our polity denies a .. trial by jury," but makes a man's .. opponents" .. his judges," 1 has no founda­ tion in fact. True, none of these councils can reinstate an expelled member or put into membership a rejected member. in any particular church or association; but if its findings and advice exonerate the aggrieved party, the result of coun­ cil becomes credentials on which any other church or associ­ ation may receive that party into fellowship with the whole body, and into standing as member, church, or minister. There is then in Congregationalism a method of redressing wrongs by councils which is neither cumbersome, nor unjust. which gives offenders not only a jury, but a jury one-half chosen by themselves, mercy glorying against judgment. I Dr. Killen charges that" Independency makes no prop1=r provision for preserving the church against the invasion of false doctrine;" and, referring to the Unitarian defection, he adds: "Their system of church government afforded the friends of orthodoxy no protection against the spread of the blighting ." Their, polity prevented them .. from adopting any creed which individuals entering the ministry

Digitized by Coogle 210 A P"esbylt'yiall's View [April, timents." J This defect is now supplied by the doctrinal bases of our district, state, and national bodies. But before the rise of these associations, we got on very well compared with other polities, especially the Presbyterian. "Ninety­ six churches in Massachusetts out of three hundred and sixty-one became Unitarian. Only twenty-seven per cent of them apostatized. "But in England, out of two hundred and fifty-eight Presbyterian churches, all but twenty-three lapsed into ; which was ninety-one per cent of the whole. In Connecticut no was lost to the faith; but in Ireland two Presbyterian synods be­ came Unitarian. In England, only six, or at most "ten, eh urches of our order became unsound in the faith; while in Scotland the whole body of Presbyterian churches fell away into Moderatism, a term which included all shades of unbelief from bald deism up to the evangelical faith; . . . . while the Presbyterian and Reformed churches of Switzer­ land, Holland, and Germany lapsed almost wholly into rationalism and heresy, leaving even the cradic of Presby­ terianism without a church of the faith of John Calvin."-2 Never was a polity freer from heresy than Congregational­ ism, The book we are in part" reviewing lays great stress and labor on the ruling eldership. Five chapters are devoted tv it. He denies that ruling elders are laymen, and assumes that his position is that of the standards of the Presbyte­ rian churches. Obliged to yield the false interpretation of 1 Tim. v. 17, on which the lay eldership was built, he seeks, with others, to change the position of Presbyterians on a point that involves the ruin of their polity. He only ob-

Digitized by Coogle of Congregationalism. 21 I

functions. .. A plurality of rulers or elders in every church," "associated on equal terms in the government of the church ," .. of the same order, though. they do not perform the same duties," 1 we concede, as did our ecclesiastical . fathers. The Cambridge Platform gives a chapter to "rul­ ing elders and ," and another to "the powers of the church and its presbytery."2 This local church presbytery laid hands on Timothy at his ordination.3 .. But," says our author. "this court is unknown to Independency. It may have a pastor and deacons in every congregation; but it has nothing properly corresponding to a presbytery, or an • as­ sembly of elders.' ". Yet Dr. John Hall had said: .. The New England dea<:on is the exact counterpart of an Old World Presbyterian ." 6 And our author, perhaps re­ '!lcmbering his pupil's words, says, in another place: .. The Congregational deacons very nearly correspond to the Pres­ byterian eldership. In Independent churches the discipline is usually administered by the pastor and deacons; but from their decision an appeal may be made to the whole body of the communicants." 6 A Congregational board, consisting of pastor, deacons, and members chosen annually by the church, is more nearly like the old Presbyterian session with its pastor and lay elders than is a modem Presbyterian ses­ sion composed wholly of ministers, according to the new theory of the ruling eldership. This theory will compel a change in their standards or else emerge in two orders in the ministry. For their" Form of Government" says: .. Ruling elders are properly the representatives of the people. chosen bv them for the ouroose of exercisinl! l!overnment

Digitized by Coogle 212 A Presbyterian's View [April, ministers by the ;" nor" administer seal­ ing ordinances." 1 Ruling elders must be members of the church they respectively serve; 2 but ministers are not members of any particular church, but of their presbyteries,' so that credentials from a presbytery cover church member­ ship and ministerial standing. If now we substitute" min­ isters" for "ruling elders" in these passages, as the new theory demands, we have two orders in the ministry, or something like it. One order cannot do what the other is required to do. Congregationalists never put such limita­ tions on ruling elders as distinct from or ministers. With them they are one order. But Dr. Charles Hodge de­ clared that to regard ruling elders as of the same order as ministers is "entirely contrary to the doctrine and practice of all the Reformed churches, and especially of our own. In those churches the ruling elder is a layman." "Ruling elders are the representatives of the people." ~ II This doctrine [that ruling elders are ministers] is, therefore, completely revolutionary. It deprives the people of all substantive power. The legislative, judicial, and executive power, ac­ cording to our system, is in church courts, and if these courts are to be composed entirely of clergymen, and are close, self-perpetuating bodies, then we have, or should have, as complete a clerical domination as the world has ever seen." 6 Vain protest! Dr. Hodge could not stay the truth. The elders in I Tim. v. 17 are of one and the same order, and lay eldership has fallen. For Presbyterians have

Digitized by Coogle of Congregationalism. 213 are commanded to 'feed his flock, laking lIlt' oversight there­ of-'I But how can they properly perform their duty if, as in the case of the Episcopal Church of Ireland, they must first share their power with ordinary laymen, who have no right whatever to sit in spiritual judicatories?" 2 "It is with some a favorite idea that the ruling elders in the Presbyterian Church, as distinguished from the ministers, represent the people. There appears to be no foundation in the New Testament for this theory of distinctive repre­ sentation. In as far as representation is concerned, minis­ ters and elders stand on the same platform. Both are elected by the people, and both are expected to minister for their benefit." 8 Thus the peopl~ are ruled out of all participation in the government of Presbyterian churches. All that is left them of this boasted government of the people is the election of their elders, usually for life, who constitute the session of their respective congregations, which elders are ministers. Then the session elects from its members by vote of itself ruling elders as delegates to the presbytery and synod to which it belongs; and the presbytery elects from its mem­ bers by vote of itself commissioners to the general assembly to which it belongs; while each general assembly, if satis­ factory in creed and practice, may elect commissioners to the international Presbyterian Alliance. It is clerical domination from the top to the bottom, rather from the assemblies down. After declining several times to limit the term of service of ruling elders, because opposed to ".the most obvious and natural construction of [their] Form of Government," ~ the General Assembly, in 1875, permitted churches to limit the exercise of the functions of ruling elders to a term of years. "The office is perpetual. But a distinction is here made between the office and the exercise 1 1 Pet. V. 3. I Framework, p. 304. 'Ibid., p. 268. , Moore's Digest, pp. 342-344.

Digitized by Coogle 2 '4 A Presbyterian's View [April. of its functions-between an acting elder and one who is for the time not exercising his office." "Elders, once ordained. shall not be divested of the office when they are not re­ elected." "They shall be entitled to represent that partic­ ular church in the higher judicatories when appointed by the session or the presbytery." 1 This rotary eldership con­ cedes nothing to popular government in the Presbyterian Church, as all elders are ministers, those not active being eligible to courts of control. It leaves the whole Presby­ t<:rian structure to be built of clergymen, resting on a session of ministers. To this has Presbyterianism, which hitherto had asserted with great earnestness "the divine right of the people to take part in the government of the church," 2 fallen; but it cannot stand as'a" clerical domi­ nation" in this age of liberty. But whither shall they go? up into Prelacy? or over into a popular church government, which until quite lately they have held theirs to be? They must come to the latter; for the people are claiming their" divine right" to rule, once made essential to Presbyterianism. For it was while the theory of lay eldership was the interpretation of I Tim. v. 17 and of the Form of Government alike, and presumably in view of this recognition of" the divine right of the people to take part in the government of the church," that the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States declared the ruling eldership to be "essential to the ex­ istence of a Presbyterian church." 8 If that deliverance was based on the essential elements of Presbyterianism, then the change in the theory of the ruling eldership, from lay to clerical eldership, cuts off all popular government, and en-

Digitized by Coogle of Cong"'~gationa';s",. dilemma. either to change their polity or to endure clerical domination. Episcopalians are admitting laymen to their counsels. And the Presbyterians. having at length accept~d the right interpretation of the one text on which their theory of the lay eldership rested. will go farther. and accept also the generally conceded interpretation of the New Testament touching the independency of the churches, with lay repre­ sentation. Indeed. they have already taken a large step towards Congregationalism. When they wished·to organize an "Alliance of the Reformed Churches throughout the world," they could not do so on their constitutive principle of authoritative representation, for this would have placed all the general assemblies under the control of the Alliance. dominating the world. So they borrowed our constitutive principle, independency, and put it up as their head of gold: .. But it [the Alliance] shall not interfere with the existing creed or constitution of any church in the AlIianc~, or with its internal order or external relation.'· 1 We trust they will like the working of this express nega­ tion of authority. It makes the Reformed churches throughout the world visibly one. On this same nega­ tion of authority, Congregationalists have sought unity in fellowship and co-operation from the beginning, in every stage of their development. That Dr. Killen should speak so contemptuously of a principle of unity adopted by all the Presbyteria~ churches throughout the world in their ecumenical alliance. is passing strange. Possibly he may yet see therein the solution of the probl~m of polity -lInitv in Iibertv He exoects a!!reement sometime

Digitized by Coogle 216 A Presbyterian's View [April,

\'igor 'of discussion as we approach the millennium. Al­ ready the discussion has made clear two things: the abso­ lute ilutonomy under Christ of every particular congregation of believers, and the visible lInion of all such churches. The first gives liberty, the last gives unity. The latter is not more certainly revealed in the New Testament than the former. We can assure our author that Congregationalists believe in the union of all Christ's churches in fellowship and co-operation on the scriptural autonomy of each church, that is, in liberty. They do not regard each church as "a solitary building surrounded by a high wall shutting it out from all adjacent edifices." 1 Our polity is an evolution from independency unto unity. Each particular church as independent manages its own affairs, having a board of rulers responsible alone to the membership of the church; these churches on the law of Christian equality and fellow­ ship, unite by delegates chosen by the churches from their own membership in district, state, national, and ecumenical bodies; with reciprocal rights and duties, but without the exercise of aufhority from the local church to the ecumeni­ cal council. Having encountered a long and bitter struggle for existence with state and ecclesiastical force, our polity was compelled first to vindicate its constitutive principle of inde­ pendency; but while doing it, it never overlooked its princi­ ple of unity, although it failed for a ~ime adequately to ex­ press that unity. But for a century our churches have been combining more and more in free and equal associations and co-operative labors, until the consummation has been reached

Digitized by Coogle of Congregationalism. 217 pletion of our polity, the same constitutive principle con­ trolling from the beginning to the end of our fellowship. And thus far only Congregationalism and the Papacy have attained ecumenical unity without the introduction of a for­ eign element. Neither Presbyterianism nor Episcopacy has been able consistently to express such unity, nor can they ever do so. Authority in their ecumenical bodies would rend them asunder.

Digitized by Coogle